A conspiracy of silence over defeat

[John Nissen]

Hi everyone,

The task given by the UN Convention on Climate Change to the IPCC was to avoid dangerous climate change.  Admitting that dangerous climate change is already upon us would be an admission of defeat.  Admitting the urgent need for SRM, or SRM at all, would be an admission of defeat.

Nowhere in the AR6 SP "Summary for Policymakers" does the word "danger" occur except in the phrase "avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".  The tens of millions already suffering from climate change are ignored.  Those few who advocate for SRM are ignored.  The papers on SRM that manage to get published seem never to express the extreme urgency for deployment to avoid catastrophic climate change and sea level rise.  For example, the paper by David Keith given as a reference in the HPAC letter*, contains a comment that SRM might result in a million deaths.  Even my letter to the FT was given a heading suggesting defence rather than avoidance for a likely sea level rise of over a metre this century.

The conspiracy of silence arises because those tasked with recommending climate policy are very happy to go along with any kind of denigration of SRM, and particularly SAI as the front runner.  So they do not object to those who say that SAI is extremely dangerous.  They do not fight against the ETC group, indigenous peoples and others who are against SRM on principle and claim that Mother Nature will look after us if we behave nicely.  And they support those who say that SRM could be ungovernable.  They do not talk of the huge benefits that SRM could bring, not only to prevent tipping point catastrophe but to reverse climate change, slow sea level rise, save ecosystems and biodiversity, and prevent widespread economic collapse and mass migration.

The result of all this is an open opportunity for the far right to claim that climate change is a hoax, ironically adding to the forces against SRM.  

We have to fight this.  I think that HPAC letter is a step in the right direction.  But still the huge dangers confronting us/humanity are not spelt out clearly enough, especially the dangers from Arctic meltdown.  And the huge potential benefits from SAI are not emphasised enough for me, especially the possibility of planetary restoration.  

Cheers, John

*  The open letter from Ron Baiman and Mike MacCracken which we've been asked to sign

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-ylFDVmw362TQmKxmmH1_NTlw7k-RHMS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true